Distant galaxy is too large to support big bang hypothesis

The latest images released from the Hubble Space Telescope pinpoint an ENORMOUS GALAXY located almost 13 billion light-years away - at a time when the
Universe was only 800 million years old. This galaxy contains 8 times the mass of stars as the Milky Way, AND REALLY SHOULDN'T EXIST ACCORDING TO
CURRENT ASTRONOMICAL THEORY. This research demonstrates that mature stars and large galaxies formed much earlier than astronomers had ever
expected. Sort of an old story,I suppose

I thought I would post this. I find it quite amazing that people talk about the "Big Bang" THEORY as if it were "fact," yet, there is evidence
that it's not "fact" at all.

I don't suppose you have another source? I'm unfortunately not able to fully read the 'article' because of its crap presentation to say the least.
And does the guy really need to CAPITALIZE everything that may be of slight importance to his agenda?

Anyway. Heres there good thing about science, its not bound by any particular theory by any one person, if the big bang is proven to be inaccurate or
that it never happened at all (which would also remain a theory not fact) then it opens up some new and thought provoking possibility's which I think
would really excite the science community.

If this galaxy did originally form before the the rest of the universe it does not nessisaraly mean the big bang didn't happen because then why would
everything else in our universe have a relatively common starting age but not this particular galaxy?

It could also be that some unknown or known for all we know force(s) occurred that accelerated that particular part of space into forming stars and
solar systems at a much faster rate than the rest of the universe. We know its possible to bend the laws of things, it could be entirely possible
this particular part of space allows time to move at an accelerated rate (from our point of view).

Or even more out there. What if that Galaxy isn't even originally from our universe?

Just because something appears to break the laws and theory's of what we currently know does not mean it actually does.

And id still like a more.. readable, professional source, i unfortunately have trouble reading from sites like that.

there is no conclusion drawn about the Big Bang's demise. Indeed, from this section:

Astronomers generally believe most galaxies were built up piecewise by mergers of smaller galaxies. However, the discovery of this object suggests
that at least a few galaxies formed quickly and in their entirety, long ago, as some older theories of "monolithic" galaxy formation have suggested.
For such a large galaxy, this would have been a tremendously explosive event, and the energy from the quick emergence of those stars would have helped
reheat the Universe very shortly after it cooled following the Big Bang. This early epoch (the first 5 percent of the Universe's age) is fertile
ground awaiting investigation by the NASA/ESA/CSA James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), which should have the infrared sensitivity to look all the way
back to the very first stars that ignited after the Big Bang.

it's clear the scientists are excited about refining both their understanding of the big bang and of galaxy formation in general. Science proceeds
by developing conceptual models to explain natural phenomena, called theories, and refine these theories when new phenomena push the bounds of this
understanding. There's nothing dogmatic or self-assured about science at all. And those scientists that do attempt to do theology and philosophy
just confuse the issue, not represent the nature of science.

I disagree that there is no dogma in science. There is, and I have posted examples of that on ATS in the past.

That saying, I don't believe that that is the case here. I believe the info on first link posted is a total mispresentation of that object and what
it is. It's just assuming that the Big Bang couldn't of happened because of that galaxy. Wrong. It doesn't invalidate the Big Bang yet. Scientists
are just going to have to find out what caused it to grow so fast. They might find out why, and would have to adapt their theories (which might still
need a rewriting of the Big Bang theory) or some factors might come into play that still will support the Big Bang theory.

Yes spacedoubt...because for galaxy clusters NGC 5011B ( also 13 mil light years from Milky Way ) was thought that was closer and bigger ( in fact is
member of our local group of 30 galaxies) than the cluster NGC 5011C - which is in fact 12x times further.

Here is a link about cluster NGC 2808 ( cant find the classification number of cluster the thread is about in the linked site...but i think that it
is these NGC 2808 that we are speaking about )- it is a single baby boomer between globular star clusters....

So we were very surprised to find several distinct
populations of stars in NGC 2808. All of the stars were born within 200 million years very
early in the life of the 12.5-billion-year-old massive cluster."

"One assumption, although we have no direct proof," said team member Ivan King of the
University of Washington in Seattle, "is that the successively bluer color of the stellar
populations indicates that the amount of helium increases with each generation of stars.
Perhaps massive star clusters like NGC 2808 hold onto enough gas to ignite a
rapid succession of stars."

The star birth would be driven by shock waves from supernovae and stellar winds from giant
stars, which compress the gas and make new stars, King explained. The gas would
be increasingly enriched in helium from previous generations of stars more massive than the Sun.

Astronomers commonly assume that globular clusters produce only one stellar generation,
because the energy radiating from the first batch of stars would clear out most of the
residual gas needed to make more stars. But a hefty cluster like NGC 2808, which
is two to three times more massive than a typical globular cluster, may have enough gravity to hang
onto that gas, which has been enriched by helium from the first stars. Of the about 150
known globular clusters in our Milky Way Galaxy, NGC 2808 is one of the most
massive, containing more than 1 million stars.

Personally, I believe that the universe has always existed, it never began and I believe it will never end.

The thing that ticks me off is that Christians tend to when trying to disprove the big bang / evolution / etc for that matter they think it
automatically makes their belief true. And to a somewhat lesser extent, visa-versa. I mean what if both sides are wrong? We don't know. Just cus the
opposing side may end up wrong doesn't mean you are right (except for some situations...and these arguments aren't those situations.)

Don't forget the theory that multiple big bangs occured while the universe already existed. I remembering reading it on digg a few days ago (or a
week ago, I don't remember when) But it was recently. The scientist was talking about how membranes can exist in there own 3 dimensional universe
above ours and when they collide, we have a big bang.(... ok, a simplified explanation of aspects of M theory) There will always be many theories
based on the same evidence, that's how we ended up with dozens of branches of christians based off the original books. Every one looks at the same
evidence with different perspective and different ideals and off we go down the rabbit hole.

Originally posted by Kacen
Personally, I believe that the universe has always existed, it never began and I believe it will never end.

That goes against the second law of thermal dynamics. If it had always existed then it would have cooled off to the point of equilibrium and there
would be no hot or cold spots.

Example would be an ice cube and a hot cup of coffee. Now place both on the table and in enough time both would reach the same temp as the room. Same
applies to the universe, if it was ageless then all heat and cold, light and darkness would eventually merge to a gray room temp nothing. It would
also mean the universe is limitless but science has proven it is not.

Originally posted by KacenJust cus the opposing side may end up wrong doesn't mean you are right (except for some situations...and
these arguments aren't those situations.)

True but one side of the argument has consequences and the other does not.

I'm not trashing your belief by any means. I'm just trying to offer some info that you may have been unaware of.

Thanks for locating that. When I read through the original mess, I wondered how the writer came to the conclusion that the Big Bang was being
disproven. The other stories are equally misunderstood.

However, they are interesting stories, with scientists finding results that go contrary in some way to some of the predictions of quantum mechanics.
I'll have to look up the subsequent papers and discussions and see what turns up.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.